Delay of the Health Law’s Employer Mandate

As the owner of a company that employs nearly 100 people, I was relieved to learn that the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act would be delayed by a year for employers like me. The troubling aspect of the mandate is not just that it imposes a financial and administrative burden on small business, but, more important, the methodology used to determine the requirements.

Since the mandate is based solely on the number of employees, and not revenue or profitability, companies such as mine that provide many jobs but produce lower margins are squeezed even tighter, while companies that may be more financially capable of providing additional benefits are excused, because they employ very few.

I applaud the legislative intent of the Affordable Care Act to increase access to health care. But if the administration also expects to reduce the level of unemployment, the employer mandate as currently written does not advance that goal. Rather, it provides an incentive for small companies to restrict job growth.

The political calculation behind the Obama administration’s decision to yet again delay aspects of the employer health insurance mandate is misguided. Employers who despise the Affordable Care Act will not be placated by a year’s delay. This is not a maneuver that will win their votes.

However, ordinary citizens who stand to gain from the law need to receive its benefits now if they are to have a reason to vote, and to vote Democratic, this November.

RICHARD LACHMANN Albany, Feb. 11, 2014

The writer is a professor of sociology at the University at Albany, SUNY.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Delay of the Health Law’s Employer Mandate. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe